Ramagos v. Regache

Please
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
Court.

In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.

ABSOLUTELY
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 5)
filed on February 2, 2018. The Motion is opposed. (R. Doc.
7). Plaintiff filed a reply. (R. Doc. 12).

I.
Background

On or
about April 28, 2017, Lana Ramagos (“Plaintiff”)
filed the instant action in the 18th Judicial District Court,
West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, naming as defendants
Pierrer Regache, Clarke Road Transport, Inc.
(“Clark”), and her husband Travis Ramagos. (R.
Doc. 1-4, “Petition”). Plaintiff alleges that she
was involved in a motor vehicle collision between a vehicle
owned and operated by Mr. Ramagos, and in which Plaintiff was
a passenger, and a vehicle by Mr. Regache and owned by Clark.
(Petition ¶¶ 3-5). Plaintiff alleges that as a
result of the accident she “sustained bodily injuries
that required medical attention and treatment by a
physician.” (Petition ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that
both Mr. Regache and Mr. Ramagos “failed to use
ordinary care by various acts and omissions . . . each of
which singularly or in combination with others, was a
proximate cause of the occurrence in question. . . .”
(Petition ¶¶ 7-9).

On May
9, 2017, Mr. Ramagos filed an Answer and Petition in
Cross-Claim seeking relief from Mr. Regache and Clarke. (R.
Doc. 1-5 at 2-6).

On
January 3, 2018, Mr. Regache and Clarke (collectively, the
“Removing Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal,
asserting that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this
action. (R. Doc. 1). The Removing Defendants assert that Mr.
Ramagos was improperly joined as a defendant in light of La.
R.S. 9:291, Louisiana's spousal immunity statute, which
precludes Plaintiff from having a right of action against her
husband. (R. Doc. 1 at 6-7). In light of the foregoing, the
Removing Defendants assert that Mr. Ramagos' consent was
not required for removal. (R. Doc. 1 at 7-8).

The
Removing Defendants further assert that there is complete
diversity because Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana, Mr.
Regache is a citizen of Canada, Clarke is a citizen of
Canada, and the citizen of Mr. Ramagos (Louisiana) should be
ignored. (R. Doc. 1 at 3). The Removing Defendants further
assert that in light of Mr. Ramagos' medical expenses,
his “claims clearly meet the amount in controversy
threshold, ” adding that it was “unclear”
at the time of removal “whether the claims of Lana
Ramagos do as well.” (R. Doc. 1 at 4). The Removing
Defendants assert that the Court should re-align Mr. Ramagos
as a plaintiff, find that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied based on his allegations, and
exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over
Plaintiff's claims. (R. Doc. 1 at 4-7).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.